Different in degree or kind: EVOLUTION (Introduction)

by David Turell , Wednesday, January 07, 2015, 19:37 (3394 days ago) @ dhw


> dhw: The key to this is common descent. As you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, bacteria remain unchanged, and so multicellularity and evolution itself could not have been a matter simply of improving “survivorship”. There must be some kind of drive towards improvement for its own sake, and that - as reflected in our own human culture - is a purpose in itself. ....And so the history of startling improvements is not from apes to humans but from bacteria to humans, and NONE of these changes were “needed”.-You have drawn out all the reasons for seeing purpose, and then stop short. I see no reason for the developments following a set of naturalist thoughts. Life appeared against all probability, bacteria have lived unchanged forever, multicellularity was not needed, but sexual reproduction introduced a better way to change and/ or improve DNA. Again, all I can see is purpose, purpose, purpose. Everything I've listed is against enormous odds. I still see underlying this only chance or design.
> 
> dhw: That is not an argument against God, as it doesn't explain the source of the mechanisms for improvement, but it seems to me to invalidate the claim that humans are “special creations” because their abilities were not needed for survival.-Here we strongly differ. Humans developed without any reason. They appeared against all odds.-> dhw: If humans weren't “needed”, nor were any of the organs and organisms that evolved from the first cells, and all species remain unchanged until they go extinct, or branch out following innovations! -Exactly!!! There is obviously a drive for improvement as you have stated. Because the successful bacteria didn't have to improve. We know that. You simply bring up improvement for its own sake, whatever that means. 
> 
> dhw: I didn't actually ask how it all works, but whenever I raise alternative hypotheses to your own, that is the sort of question you ask, as if not knowing invalidated the hypothesis in all cases but your own.
> 
> DAVID: I try to work only from what I already know or can be learned, and then try to work to the best solution to what problem or theory is presented.
> 
> dhw: So do all honest truth-seekers of whatever persuasion.-To me you seem to stop thinking when the obvious issue of purpose is presented. Do you deny the marked impression of purpose in the course of evolution?